On Fri, 22 Jun 2018, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 02:05:47PM +0000, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Tue, 12 Jun 2018, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> >
> > > __pgtable_l5_enabled shouldn't be needed after system has booted, we can
> > > mark it as __initdata, but it requires preparation.
> > >
> > > This patch moves early cpu initialization into a separate translation
> > > unit. This limits effect of USE_EARLY_PGTABLE_L5 to less code.
> > >
> > > Without the change cpu_init() uses __pgtable_l5_enabled. cpu_init() is
> > > not __init function and it leads to section mismatch.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shute...@linux.intel.com>
> > > Reviewed-by: Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de>
> >
> > Second thoughts.
> >
> > The only place where __pgtable_l5_enabled() is used in common.c is in
> > early_identify_cpu() which is marked __init. So how is that section
> > mismatch triggered?
>
> Yeah, it's not obvious:
>
> cpu_init()
> load_mm_ldt()
> ldt_slot_va()
> LDT_BASE_ADDR
> LDT_PGD_ENTRY
> pgtable_l5_enabled()
How is that supposed to work correctly?
start_kernel()
....
trap_init()
cpu_init()
....
check_bugs()
alternative_instructions()
So the first invocation of cpu_init() on the boot CPU will then use
static_cpu_has() which is not yet initialized proper.
So, no. That does not work and the proper fix is:
-unsigned int __pgtable_l5_enabled __initdata;
+unsigned int __pgtable_l5_enabled __ro_after_init;
and make cpu/common.c use the early variant. The extra 4 bytes storage are
not a problem and cpu_init() is not a fast path at all.
Thanks,
tglx
